The judge's observation concerning the potential loss of choice for farmers and consumers is actually the more relevant issue. Even if the modifications are perfectly safe in every case, if the crop stands a strong chance of cross contaminating other farmer's fields Monsanto has proven themselves more than willing and capable of claiming ownership of any hybrids of their patented organisms.
So I have fewer problems with the GENETIC manipulations than I do the LEGAL manipulations.
That kind of demonstrates what the problem is. "Fake" chiropracty is...what? If you manipulate the back in any physical way then some would call that Chiropractic treatment, so even a light massage may count. Everyone says it is bogus because there are no studies, but if you can't do a study how can you say it ISN'T better than drugs or surgery? Back surgery doesn't have any double blind studies to prove it works either, but because they can point to scientific reasons for doing the procedure it is considered legitimate.
I would bet money that a decent massage would give more short term relief from pain than a placebo drug, and there a plenty of subjective follow-up studies that show people with "similar" back problems are "happier"(whatever that means) with the outcomes they get from Chiropractic care than "comparable" recipients of back surgery. Anyone who feels the need to say *citation needed* can just google chiropratic versus back surgery and you will find a bunch of articles... on chiropractic sites. But to be fair a lot of the people who say it is bunk are back surgeons so the bias cuts both ways.
Double blind studies compared to what exactly? It can't be compared to surgery, and drugs are generally not a treatment for a lot of things that involve the spine.
If you are talking about nut jobs that recommend chiropractic treatment of colds, asthma, etc. then I can see your point. But for non-specific lower back pain I'm not sure what you could study it against.
Linux predictions always depend on Microsoft bungling the response to a new threat. If MS had stuck with its plans to mothball XP Linux would be considerably more common on Netbooks and there would be more active interest from manufactures in support a Linux version for their machines the way the currently do for Windows. As it was MS did what they had to do to give customers a familiar Microsoft product to choose over Linux.
People will most often choose familiar products if they can, switching to something that is different but "just as good"
The key is that Linux keeps creating more challenges for MS, forcing them to lower prices, increase performance and think of what the customers really want. Without the competitive threats Linux poses, Microsoft would normally charge more for bloated products that are upgraded when Microsoft WANTS you to upgrade. It's not their fault, that is what a complacent monopoly does. They should thank Linux, it has saved them from 2 or 3 really stupid moves.
Hackers of the world, unite!